You are here
15.3 Conduct of the Investigation
The investigation of the factual circumstances allegedly giving rise to an injury or disease is perhaps the most critical phase of the dete — rmination of liability.
Of course, many cases are very simple and straightforward and involve simple injuries clearly documented in accident reports and on the employee's ADF medical file. These raise few issues with regard to causation.
Nevertheless, a high percentage of RCG cases involve old injuries with deficient documentation or those where the issues generally are less clear cut. The actual work of inquiry for those more ambiguous cases is very diverse and takes a different form to suit the featu — r — es of each individual case. Few invariable rules or step-by-step procedures can be specified by this Handbook, as it is the individual Delegate who must be satisfied as to the merits of the individual case. Delegates are expected to apply judgement, discr — e — tion and reason when considering the significance of the matters placed before them, (or alternatively, facts uncovered by their own inquiries) and to apply the 'balance of probabilities' test correctly.
Delegates should also refer once again to 'the man — ner in which claims are to be determined...'
Nevertheless, the following general principles and guidelines can be given:
- Unsupported client assertion is not sufficient evidence
The proposition that a medica — l condition has an employment-related origin must be supported by independent evidence, and may not be accepted only on the unsupported assertion of the claimant. Even a statutory declaration by the claimant should not be regarded as sufficient to accept l — iability in the absence of other, independently corroborating evidence.
- Sworn statements by independent witnesses are however acceptable
Circumstances and events alleged by claimants should preferably be verified by documents contemporary with the even — ts. Failing that, statutory declarations given by witnesses at a later time – i.e. even with the claim – may possibly be satisfactory, but depending entirely on the Delegate's discretion and opinion as to the weight to be given to those declarations.
- ADF documents contemporary with the injury etc should be regarded as the most persuasive evidence.
These documents include (but are not limited to) incident and accident reports, clinical notes and reports from ADF medical files, ADF Unit memoranda corresp — ondence and/or Standing or Routine Orders, etc.
- Late incident reports to be closely scrutinised and verified.
Cases have occurred where, although an incident report form does indeed exist, the ADF member did not submit it at the time of the alleged in — jury but only some years later, perhaps only at the time of submitting the compensation claim. These documents should only be given any weight when the supervisor signing to corroborate the factual nature of the report, was also the responsible supervisor at the time of the alleged injury.
- A record of treatment by ADF Health does NOT automatically establish a work nexus.
Delegates should recall that the ADF Medical Service is obliged to treat all of the employee's medical conditions whilst serving, i.e. no matter how those conditions arose. Discovery of a treatment record for the claimed condition on the employee's ADF medical file therefore merely establishes that the condition was present during the period of ADF employment, but does not necessarily e — stablish that the condition is attributable to that service.
- On the other hand, ADF medical records sometimes do attribute cause
or at least discuss the broad circumstances of an injury. For instance a note originated by an ADF hospital that 'admit thi — s AM after fall from climbing net at PT, # L tibia' would certainly establish the nexus with employment for this broken leg. Also, a medical note reporting the member's recollection (for the purposes of treatment) of an earlier injury may also have some e — v — idential value i.e. 'badly infected finger – cut on night exercise 1/52 ago, did not seek immediate aid'.
- Retrieval of the relevant contemporary medical records
Delegates should make their requests for copies of such documents via DOCTRACKER to the SA — M team located in Canberra.
- Clients suspected of withholding documents inconsistent with the claim
In a limited number of cases where a claimant supplies copies of Defence medical record — s relating to a medical condition, Delegates may nevertheless suspect from other cues, that not all of the evidence has been released by the claimant. In those circumstances, the Delegate should not hesitate to apply for copies directly via the SAM team.
- Confirmation of the member's presence at the Maralinga/Monte Bello
Nuclear tests in the 1950s can be accomplished simply by means of a nominal roll. Details of the employee's role and radiation dose can be sought from the Policy area.
- Navy members involved in the Melbourne/Voyager and Melbourne/Evans collisions
Are also listed on a nominal roll. Procedures for dealing with these claims are in MCRI 6.
- Details of ADF member's service,
i.e. postings, physical location, rank and ratin — gs, 'mustering' or ECN etc., disciplinary history, grievance appeals and other career details can be sought by Delegates from Defence via the DVA SAM Team (through Docktracker).
- Unit records
For many assertions on more detailed matters i.e. rostering at a particular time/place, approval to play with civilian sports teams, use of chemicals etc. the only source may be the member's unit or ship at the time of the alleged injury. However, experience has demonstrated that in most cases clear answers may no — t be forthcoming from a unit, following five years after an event. The dissipation of group memory because of the posting cycle and the turnover of ephemeral records (rosters, standing orders etc.) means that the work unit is not always a reliable source o — f information over the long term.
- Investigations of complex events or alleged sensitive (secret) circumstances
Delegates will sometimes face complex and unresolved assertions about unusual circumstances and/or duties, the nature of service, presence a — t significant events not otherwise recorded, ADF procedures and/or contact with substances etc. Matters such as these and issues such as the outcome of formal Defence inquiries etc., may seek clarification from the Directorate of Entitlements, in the Depa — r — tment of Defence. Personnel from this Directorate have, in the past, been able to research quite specific matters. Requests to the Directorate of Entitlements are to be sent via a DOCTRACKER request to SAM..
- The medical opinion of a relevant specialist is the other major source of information relating to the nexus between a medical condition and ADF service
This opinion about causation is usually, though not invariably, sought in conjunction with an opinion about the true diagnosis of the claim. Speci — alist medical opinion ('SMR') is sought mainly in cases of disease. Alternatively it may be arranged (e.g.) where the other evidence in support of an injury is not compelling enough on its own to concede the case on the basis of existing documents. Arrang — i — ng and interpreting medical reports is dealt with in more detail at section 11.
- Delegates should regard medical reports as having an advisory character
and an opinion only (albeit an expert opinion). While Delegates are not, of course, qualified to pr — opose a contrary medical opinion, Delegates are entitled to give a relatively low weight to an opinion proposed by a sub standard report.